[hashcash] Re: Length of recent X-Hashcash cookies?

Adam Back <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> OK in previous discussions I was under the impression that X- is the
> standard way to do it.  Sounds like it is? but if it becomes a
> standard/ratified header you can remove the X-.

It used to be the standard way to do it.  But it leads to the
backwards compatibility issues you encounter now.  So nowadays people
tend to not use X-.  RFC 2822 reflect this change in behavior by not
discussing the X- prefix.  Sadly, it would be better if 2822 discussed
why X- should not be used.  I suspect they didn't want to mention it,
because doing so could lead to endless discussions about the exact
wording...

> In the interests of making that work if that happens at some point I
> will make the next version accept but not generate Hashcash, and
> generate X-Hashcash.  That way if at some point it changes, we'll have
> less backwards compatibility issues without having to include the
> header 2x once as X-Hashcash and once as Hashcash.

This sounds like a good first step.

Thanks,
Simon

Other related posts: